Known techniques for securing physical resources, such as buildings, include providing an electronic lock to a door and then configuring the lock to respond to the presence of an access card, key code, or similar. More recent systems use smartphones to open electronic locks. In such systems, the electronic lock tends to be wired for power or have easily replaceable batteries. In addition, reliable control signaling to the electronic lock is often a requirement.
Conventional systems are ill-suited for securing physical resources that are not readily wired for power and data. Such resources are often at remote locations or are infrequently accessed. Running data and/or power to such resources can be prohibitively expensive and complicated. As such, these kinds of resources are often secured using physical keys, which can be easily copied, lost, or stolen.
Moreover, many conventional systems, such as those that are used in residential applications, often take for granted the physical exposure of the lock to augment the relatively simple security technology provided. That is, it is often thought that a typical residential “smart lock” need only be as secure as the deadbolt that it replaced, as someone trying to gain unauthorized access to a residential smart lock is a comparable threat to someone trying to pick a deadbolt. This may suffice for residential applications. However, for remote or infrequently accessed physical resources, those trying to gain unauthorized access have much more time and ability to do so without timely detection. Hence, conventional systems, particularly those that can be categorized as residential smart locks, are incapable of adequately protecting such resources.